Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Usain]

I'm not sure that vehicle ownership will decrease on average once RT is a reality. I think people will have dedicated personal vehicles for themselves and a fleet of vehicles to work on the RT network so long as it remains a profitable endeavor.

I'd venture to say that around half the people who own a car today would be a lot better off financially if they didn't need one. Car ownership is very expensive and a huge hassle. And so many people are one major car repair away from financial ruin.

If robotaxi is a workable, lower cost alternative then most will opt for a nicer place to live instead of owning cars.

 

[hitchhiker]

This sort of concept is 10+ years away. I think it's fine to look to that future, but it's not imminent and there will be pushback from the market, especially in the US.

I disagree. I do think the transition will be gradual and take 10+ years, but a large amount of America would move to if as soon as it is provable.

Personally, my wife and I decided we wanted to live in more walkable towns and got rid of our 2nd car in the process - partially because Uber is available when we need it. We don't regret it. But we don't actually use Uber that often in town because it often cost too much and because I often don't trust the driving of the drivers occasionally. Plus we don't need it that often. But cost/driver would be solved by robotaxi.

... and my friends who have kids started reporting around 10 years ago that their kids didn't even want to get a drivers license. They liked just using Uber (and it saved my friends a lot of money in insurance -- it turns out having a monthly uber budget is cheaper than owning a 3rd car and paying for insurance for someone under 25). This is in a major American city, but it would be true in any city that was guaranteed to have plentiful rides available. So there's the next generation.

Not everyone is ready or wants it. That's ok -- we don't need everyone in order to make meaningful progress. We just need some at first. And like with all market-based competition, if it turns out to be a good idea more will come.

 

[jerry33]

Where I live, family often have 2 cars, even if only one of the parents works. The "second" car is used for groceries, errands, etc. If everything goes well, a true robotaxi service could replace this second car.
I'm in a town without a taxi service, and if with few euros I could just book a ride and go to the nearest supermarket, I could easily think about getting rid of the car. I mean, the savings would be *incredible*.
People buy multiple cars out of habit and necessity but if a slightly more inconvenient but massively cheaper alternative could happen, I see a world of opportunity. Money is king. You are talking hundreds of dollars a year VS thousands. A couple robotaxis in my town could actually suffice for 90% of demand.
All of this of course if the software is good enough and the service is cheap enough.

The only issue I have with "replaces the second car" is that usually the second car is the old first car, so it no longer costs anything other than maintenance, which isn't high because it's driven less. If a family doesn't have a second car to start with then RT is an obvious choice (perhaps with the exception of soccer moms where they need to transport several people--assumes RT is two or four seat only).

 

[Blue horseshoe]

I'd venture to say that around half the people who own a car today would be a lot better off financially if they didn't need one. Car ownership is very expensive and a huge hassle. And so many people are one major car repair away from financial ruin.

If robotaxi is a workable, lower cost alternative then most will opt for a nicer place to live instead of owning cars.

If robotaxi generates the owner a profit most will opt for a nicer place to live and own as many robotaxis as is profitable

 

[cusetownusa]

Yep. I don't see any middle ground at all.

Sadly, this is the realization I have come to over the last couple of days. I have been using FSD (now v12.3.4) everyday and I just don't see the value in it of why people in large numbers would pay for it. At best I see it as a replacement for Uber/Lyft, but even with that, it's still a long ways away of being capable of replacing those services.

This is the first time I have ever thought about trimming a significant portion of my shares. It almost seems if you are not on the FSD/RT bandwagon there isn't much else to get excited about (maybe optimus?) for future growth. I am still hesitant to do so as I keep thinking that I am missing something and that this could be hugely profitable for Tesla. The timing would also suck with the SP being down so much. If it was still at $200+ I think I wouldn't be hesitating on trimming my shares.

 

[unk45]

Someone posted about a new player in the grid-scale storage market (CATL IIRC) - I just got an invite from PV magazine to a presentation by the Chinese solar panel producer JinkoSolar talking about a similar product (including solar panels though), see below - seems like Tesla started a trend again with the MegaPack...

pv magazine Webinar | Procuring bankable PV and energy storage as a complete solution

Insert description here, including bullet points.

www.bigmarker.com

Both CATL and Jinko (largest global Solar Panel maker) have been in this market for some time as has Huawei and BYD, and others. Most of those are competitors in many markets, but mostly in parts of Asia, South America and Africa. It is interesting also that they often enter ne markets in cooperation with other entities, often local but not always.

Jinko seems to have found the storage part to be irresible because of their great success with solar panels. Huawei entered all this about ten years ago and has built on their position in commercial electrical and electronics, perhaps famed in EU/NA for their 5G etc.. CATL has been in this market from the beginning, but very often with local partners whose own brands appear on CATL products, they also have factories in many places where, due to their business parachutes, may or may not actually appear in their disclosures.

I am not an expert on all this, but have recently been very aware due to all of those now in major operations in Brazil, and all of whose products have been offered to me for my own projects. Tesla did have an early position in Brazil but after initial projects with Vale on their own storage needs they have not been a factor, and have not responded to commercial inquiries despite their public positioning.

 

[CitizenKane]

For those assuming that FSD would never work in population dense areas, this was pretty impressive to me although probably still not aggressive enough. Granted, it's not India or Vietnam, but it still does a good job of sohwing that FSD can actually make progress in population dense areas:

My Mandarin is not what it could be - is this in China and is FSD 12 even available there?

 

[2daMoon]

The regular misunderstandings I see:

1. Describing "Wall Street" as if it had a united view or agenda. Wall Street is an umbrella term to describe the financial markets and the companies that trade publicly on exchanges throughout the U.S. It can also be used to describe people who work or are active in those markets/companies. Ascribing a certain view or intention on all participants in that group is false. It would be like saying that TMC's investor forum has one view, when in reality it covers a wide spectrum of views and agendas.
2. Exaggerating the importance / influence of short sellers while simultaneously disregarding all market actors taking long bets. Yes, as follows from the links you included, there are hedge funds and short sellers and some of them try to - sometimes successfully, sometimes not - influence other to sell stock by making their views or research public. Firms like Viceroy or managers like Burry and Chanos come to mind. On the flip side, there are a lot of managers and others taking long bets who make their research or views very public to try to increase a share price. What should be remembered is this - the markets are short term irrational but long term rational.
3. Using conspiracy theory logic to form opinions on how "Wall Street" works. By this I mean extrapolating any proven instances of market manipulation to form the conclusion that the whole market is rigged. It's like finding an inconsistency in some detail about 9/11 or the Apollo Expedition and from that derive that 9/11 was a government inside job or that the moon landing was fake. Yes, there are attempted and successful manipulations happening on the markets, in both directions, and it is often illegal. The game stop short squeeze was an entertaining manipulation of the markets (at least for us on the outside). But this doesn't mean that every time the stock I own goes down it must be due to some sinister agenda.

A lot more could be written but it in summary it seems to me as part of what is wrong with social media in general - everything is put in black and white, something is 100% good or 100% bad and there is little room for nuances or source criticism.

Very well put.

However, this in no way negates how relatively few market players among the vast multitude can target an otherwise successful company and negatively affect it in order to protect their interests and investments.

When a company is disrupting several influential power bases there are mechanisms both inside and outside the market that can be employed to mount multiple attacks on a company with a healthy balance sheet in order to shift sentiment, or simply to punish those investors who support it and encourage them to sell.

They don't have to conspire with one another to do this. It can happen simply by each doing what they have always done to effect a minor influence within their realm. When Tesla is threatening multiple entrenched power bases there can be push back from multiple fronts simultaneously.

Granted, labeling this effect as "Wall Street" or as "Shorty" is over simplification. It provides a useful label to paint a wide variety of influence that can be deployed. When done so in response to Tesla's success that affects these individual interests, even if not being done as an organized effort, the results can appear as if they were.

Hopefully the benefits of this disruption will have enough support and momentum to carry Tesla through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune toward a brighter future for all.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Where I live, family often have 2 cars, even if only one of the parents works. The "second" car is used for groceries, errands, etc. If everything goes well, a true robotaxi service could replace this second car.
I'm in a town without a taxi service, and if with few euros I could just book a ride and go to the nearest supermarket, I could easily think about getting rid of the car. I mean, the savings would be *incredible*.
People buy multiple cars out of habit and necessity but if a slightly more inconvenient but massively cheaper alternative could happen, I see a world of opportunity. Money is king. You are talking hundreds of dollars a year VS thousands. A couple robotaxis in my town could actually suffice for 90% of demand.
All of this of course if the software is good enough and the service is cheap enough.

For the reasons you mention, if many people do the same and sell the 2nd car due to RT, imagine the overstock of used ICE. Not all at once, but a steady ramp of surplus ICE is a good thing, I just wouldn't want to be the last one out trying to sell it (or a Hybrid) into a dying ICE Ownership market.

 

[aubreymcfato]

The only issue I have with "replaces the second car" is that usually the second car is the old first car, so it no longer costs anything other than maintenance, which isn't high because it's driven less. If a family doesn't have a second car to start with then RT is an obvious choice (perhaps with the exception of soccer moms where they need to transport several people--assumes RT is two or four seat only).

This is true, but what about delaying the purchase of a new vehicle after that old first car?
You are now saving the tens of thousands of $ of the new car, even for a few years.
I think the addressable market of a truly L4-5 system is quite large, even at the beginning. Tesla will never build them fast enough. Just think about California.

 

[cusetownusa]

The only issue I have with "replaces the second car" is that usually the second car is the old first car, so it no longer costs anything other than maintenance, which isn't high because it's driven less. If a family doesn't have a second car to start with then RT is an obvious choice (perhaps with the exception of soccer moms where they need to transport several people--assumes RT is two or four seat only).

I am not sure how anyone with kids could replace the 2nd car. Maybe it would make it unnecessary to get a 3rd car when the kids get their license but this wouldn't be hugely profitable. I would still prefer a $25k tesla for the 3rd car over having to rely on a RT.

 

[uscbucsfan]

I disagree. I do think the transition will be gradual and take 10+ years, but a large amount of America would move to if as soon as it is provable.

You say you disagree, but then agree?

There are currently 100k car services in NYC, yet 45% of people living in the city own at least 1 car.

The idea that people will give up car ownership in masses because this taxi doesn't have a driver is illogical. Sure if ride sharing was much cheaper (that's key, has to be cheaper than Uber/Lyft...much cheaper in fact) and MUCH more abundant...maybe 5x the current ride share population, you will absolutely see a group of people who will forgo car ownership, but this is mostly in the city. This isn't the case for most of the US living outside of large cities. Believing owning cars will be a thing of the past is flying cars level forecasting. Sure possible in the distant future, but low probability.

 

[replicant]

Tesla & x.AI: What relationship do you expect between the two companies?

We heard Elon say Tesla is building an extremely compute-efficient mini AGI for FSD. Since the mission of xAI is to achieve AGI, the companies might end up doing the same work twice when training models on vision from various devices (robots, cars and others).

Tesla could license some special capability from xAI (trained on a wider range of data sources, far beyond street level). In exchange, xAI could buy -Tesla's video feeds (as suggested in their latest post).

I could see full AGI needing more input that Tesla's only vision (e.g to fully understand the nuances in regulations, all human and animal behaviors, people's interactions with robots, etc). The most important part of the car and robot AGI stack might turn out to be source from xAI models more than Tesla's. We would then see a gradual transfer of value from Tesla to xAI. What would then be the profit sharing structure between the two companies? As the xAI model becomes smarter, building on top of all the knowledge acquired in previous version, every new image and video would add smaller and smaller marginal value. In short, I believe it would be harder to find edge cases from a fleet of millions of Tesla devices, and so the value of the fleet decreases while the intelligence of the xAI model would continue to improve based on all the possible firehoses.

Finally, other OEM would certainly prefer licensing AGI tech from xAI rather than from Tesla, to ensure they have a more level playing field with Tesla in the auto and energy business. I can imaging Elon explaining they don't have a choice, just like he said he has no choice but to beat OpenAI at poaching Tesla engineers.

 

[JusRelax]

My Mandarin is not what it could be - is this in China and is FSD 12 even available there?

Not in China... this is in NYC.

 

[aubreymcfato]

For the reasons you mention, if many people do the same and sell the 2nd car due to RT, imagine the overstock of used ICE. Not all at once, but a steady ramp of surplus ICE is a good thing, I just wouldn't want to be the last one out trying to sell it (or a Hybrid) into a dying ICE Ownership market.

Yes.
Used ICEs will go one for decades, but government incentives to scrap them will be more and more aggressive (as they have been, for decades, to renew the fleet).

 

[mongo]

I am not sure how anyone with kids could replace the 2nd car. Maybe it would make it unnecessary to get a 3rd car when the kids get their license but this wouldn't be hugely profitable. I would still prefer a $25k tesla for the 3rd car over having to rely on a RT.

Indeed, car seats are an issue.
I'd even venture to say a couple with kids needs two cars else they must RT to the car with the seats in the event the person doing the pickup changes. Even that assumes drop off pick up can be done by one person/car.

For person without dependents, RT can be fine for commuting, assuming availability. For getting older children to activities it's handy also.

 

[CitizenKane]

Very well put.

However, this in no way negates how relatively few market players among the vast multitude can target an otherwise successful company and negatively affect it in order to protect their interests and investments.

When a company is disrupting several influential power bases there are mechanisms both inside and outside the market that can be employed to mount multiple attacks on a company with a healthy balance sheet in order to shift sentiment, or simply to punish those investors who support it and encourage them to sell.

They don't have to conspire with one another to do this. It can happen simply by each doing what they have always done to effect a minor influence within their realm. When Tesla is threatening multiple entrenched power bases there can be push back from multiple fronts simultaneously.

Granted, labeling this effect as "Wall Street" or as "Shorty" is over simplification. It provides a useful label to paint a wide variety of influence that can be deployed. When done so in response to Tesla's success that affects these individual interests, even if not being done as an organized effort, the results can appear as if they were.

Hopefully the benefits of this disruption will have enough support and momentum to carry Tesla through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune toward a brighter future for all.

Well, either that, or enough market participants simply don't believe Tesla will generate enough cashflow in the future to justify a higher share price. The simplest explanation is often the right one.

 

[AndrewZ]

As an intermediate step to robotaxi, isn't there a world where driver assist technology with a certaion level of functionality gets mandated as required safety functionality for every car the same way seatbelts and airtbags are?

In that case, if the technical requirements of the system are high enough, could we imagine Tesla sells its system to other automakers, ala providing the Supercharger network, because some of them they choose to not make the investment to reach that level and simply license with Tesla? If it's simply autobraking, then most car companies will have it - but if it's something definitively more, perhaps drive the occupant to medical facility if an unconscious drive is detected (making that up), then maybe the path some manufacturers take will be licensing through Tesla.

I don’t think assistance features like that would be mandated, if you draw comparisons to things like seat belts or airbags or traction control. The driver is still responsible with driver assists, mandating them would probably open manufacturers up to liability if something happens and the driver says it was the assist feature’s fault like if airbags failed in a crash.

Something that could be mandated and has been talked about is like driver monitoring systems that take action if an inattentive driver is detected or if the driver has a medical emergency, or built in breathalyzer functionality — stuff that further puts the onus on the driver rather than absolves the driver. These things would take us further away from automated driving, really.

 

[2daMoon]

To be fair, RT's need to exist as a business first before it can grow. Currently FSD is still not solved so RT's aren't possible. Hopefully "soon" though.

I'm in the camp with the view from @Artful Dodger earlier that the RT vehicle can also be deployed as the $25K car until FSD is up to snuff. (might be offered in a variety of configurations based on a common platform)

They only need to design the RoboTaxi as compatible with standard game controllers, and it is good to go, right? /s

Essentially saying that with "by wire" functionality for steering, braking, and accelerator those components can be designed to be easily installed and uninstalled to accommodate either function.

This will further establish Tesla and the existing fleet as best prepared for autonomy when FSD reaches an adequate number of 9s beyond the decimal point.

Edit: Though, further, once the march of 9s is done there will be significant profits from licensing Tesla tech in order to broaden the manufacture of robotaxi to include other OEM's products with a "Tesla Inside" sticker.

 

[sunwarriors]

No downside risk, Max flex.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1780494285487448184

Why the Market gets the Robotaxi - Compact Car story Totally Wrong

While most people think Tesla has chosen between Robotaxi and Compact Car, the reality is that Tesla is making one model that is technically so similar it is technically both. Adding controls is a quick fix you can do anytime without a huge time effort.

Tesla will have one production line for both cars with the unboxed process and from the outside, you won't see any difference at all. In fact, the test production line already exists. There is no delay of the compact car at all, it is coming.

Elon uses a smart risk-avoiding strategy because if FSD takes for whatever reason longer, Tesla can sell the car as a compact car, and if FSD goes as predicted fast, it's a no-brainer to use it as such because of the expected 5 times higher margin and incredible profit.

Vehicles that are sold as compact cars can be any time later reused as full-blown Robotaxis and Tesla may even only lease them to have enough vehicles coming back if needed.

There is no bet or gamble but an awesome strategy. $tsla

h/t @avoigt

Even though I agree with your possible overall comment that it could be the same thing, won't a robotaxi/compact car that you claim to be the same need production line ramp up and new supplies/parts/etc ready if that's what's happening in August?

Are you assuming the robotaxi will simply use the Model 3 as the platform for it since it was reported that the Model 2 was delayed/paused/killed/suppliers told to hold now (yeah, Reuters article which Elon claims is a lie)?